48 F. 367 -

48 F1d 367

class="ad-unit">

Advertisement

Case Text

,UNlTEJ,> ,!lTATES fl. COPPEJ,.L.

367

UNITED

(DlBt7-1ct aourt,'s.

COPPELL et ale

,po New York. February 18,1891.)

BOND-'-LUBILITY OJ' PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

Where tfB,nspo$tioIl bonds, pursuant to sections 3000, 3001, Rev. Bt. U. S., were executed by principals and for the transportation of merchandise from bOnded warehouse i.n New York City to be entered and,rewarehoused.in New Orleanst La," Jlolld Where ,15,uch mercha,,ndise, through' no, faUl,t, of the prinClPBlson, the bonus, was not entered at the port of New Orleans, nor rewarehoused therei ll· butW'88, upon amvalatNew Orleans, shipped by rail to its destination in the repUblW of Mexico, t!lrqugb a mistakeol'overilight of the United States inspector of customs at New Orleans, that the principals andElurety upon the bonds remMned liable for double the amount'ot the duties upon said merchandise, 8CC9rdto the oonQition of lb.e lIonds and provisions of sectiona 8000 and 3001. Rev. Bt. U. B. , ' ,

, ",This was' a consolidated action" brought1?Y the, tynited States, govern'ment' to updrii two transportation bonds wveu' defendants as prinCipals ·. in 'form,bdtbdated bemg 1D theJ>enal sum of $100, 'the other in the penals,om for tbe tr,aosportati9D. Of CilUStic s?4l!-, fl'oiri New York tON'llW: which merchandise Was eontainediri'bonded warehouse attbe port -tif New York. The' condition both Of the bonds was in the usual form' proVided by articles 725 arrd:726cif the United States' ulatioJls'ofl884, and was as foUoWa:: " ,, , , tberefore;the condition' of this obligation is that, if the bounden prhicipals shall' Within four months [daysl'from the, cause to be tl'ansported in Cromwell's iine New QrJeans. and shall within the: time :berein speoified, deliver the sam'elo the fl,t the sai4 PP.r;lJ, ot destination, and cause due entry thereof to bo ·.an!l,.qaJllllso the, time herein speci6ed .produce to an,d, deposit thli;collector !l0rt!?f a the-said port of destmatlOtt that t\;Je saId has been, delivered to him aecording tQlawand rewarehoused, and thel'60npaid orseeuroo;or. ,faiUngso';to do, shall pay to the pro}lerc61lecting officer of United States at :the ssid, port of withdraWal 'the amountdNiuties to as due ,owing on merchandise aforesaid, ancian :adof lOOper pursuant to ,the statute insucQ ca!$!l,maqll'and then this oblfg'a(ion to',oe void; otherwise, i,t force.'! ' " " , , The was bonded the,pQrf; of New York ):>y tWQ trap!3portatioll, entrie$ in the :usual form, bptb qated May and that the "merchandise was withdrawn from, warel:iql.lse ,by .. Co. fpr to;New Orleans byroute or vessel, Cromwllll's line, SS.New Orleans,". )t was the mercbandise in,bOth cases at tlIepprt of t qrk, tpe Orleans, of Crom.wEllI!s line, 'the 25th;ofJt;1l1Y, in the at of New or 3d day ofJune, .,1889", The · th.e

At Law.

,','

,",',

N;'

in

' 'Nv:w.

FEBJmAL· REPORTER, YOlo

48.

treasury regulations. for the transportation of merchandise in bond from one collection district in the United States to' anotber; and stated upon its face fuat the merchandise was "laden on board Cromwell's line for transportation and exportation to New Orleans in the state of Louisiana by waYo.f ., , , to be d,elivered to the collector or other proper officers .of the ,customson arrival at the port ofdestination;" and giving the consigneesaa "A.M, & Co,." It was further·proved that manifest o(the steam-ship contained no special reference to the merchandise in defendants offered testimony, which was received, under<i>bjectionsby the United States attorney, that it was their intention direct from the port 9f,New York to the ultimate into ship thEl tended,:destination thereof in Mexico, but that they found upon inquiry that there was no bonded carrier between the port of New York and Mexico. They therefore proceeded to withdraw thfl goods fr,om wareentries p.bove referEed to, and,.to ship the house unqer.the wllich. were bondeci cap-iers, to New mtendlOg th,e goods at that, port, and then to withd#r. for transpo'rt to :¥exico. They therefo,re delivered the recei)?tor bill' Of lading received froll:l:the Cromwell line ()f steamers the city of to the Agent of the Mexican. Central Railway COJllp/iny" from t.he Gentral a provldlOg that saId merbIll of ladIngfor the merc4andlse 10 chandise' sA-Guld, be transport,ed from 'sllid initial line and connections, (viz., theCtom'wellline ofsteamers,)and deHvered to the Mexican Cento, be transported over tral Railvvl:!'y Company at .lDIPaso,· RailWjay COIupany to Aguas Calientes, the fine' of said Mexican and <;leliV6,1't\d to consignees, etc. I It was. shown by testimony taken in New Orleans in behalf of the defeadants that the United States district inspector at New Orleans wasnotiiied by the delivery clerk for the Crom;' well line that certain bonded freight was on board the steamer New Orleans, and that such United States· district inspector came to the ship, and a manifest of the bonded goods was delivered to him, and that the States,inspector i,n90rsed the same, and certified to the transferor the merchandise to the cars of the Texas Pacific Railroad Company; ,that the merchandise was transferred and forwarded to Mexico by the Texas Pacific Railroad Company. It a]so appeared fuatA. M. & Co., the consignees of the goods at New Orleans, were the agents of the Cromwell line at that port. , The defendants further iI:ltroduced testimony, likewise against the objection Of the United States attorney,showingthatthe merchandise in question,arrived at Ciudad Juarez, in Mexico, about June Hi, 1889, and that the,tls:ua1 "landing certificate" in respect to such goods was 'duly executed, which certificate was certified by the United Staw9consul. IIi behalf Of the' government (plaintiff) testimony waS introduced showing tbiltthe merchandise in question had never been tathe collector of the port of or to his chief deputy collector,and that there were no records at the New Orleans custom-house showing the delivery of the same; that it was the duty ofithe bondedcofumon'carriet:to report the arrival of bonded met-